On Monday, The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) announced it will intervene in the Ontario government’s appeal of a court ruling that blocked the removal of downtown Toronto bike lanes.
The ongoing bike lane saga began with the “Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act.” The bill was passed back in November 2024. The legislation required municipalities to obtain provincial approval before installing bike lanes that remove vehicle traffic lanes.
Bill 212
It also mandated the removal of existing bike lanes on three major roads in Toronto. Cycling advocacy group Cycle Toronto challenged the law. It argued that removing dedicated bike lanes violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
In July 2025, Justice Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the bike lane removal provisions were unconstitutional and could not be justified under section 1, which allows reasonable limits on Charter rights, according to the CCF. (You can read the full decision here.)
Premier Doug Ford quickly criticized the ruling on his bike lane law, calling it “ridiculous.” Ford said bike lanes can cause gridlock when a vehicle lane is removed. Furthermore, he has several times said supports cycling lanes on secondary roads rather than major arteries.
Challenging the Challenge
Court documents also showed that the province had acknowledged the potential consequences of removing bike lanes, including a possible 54 per cent rise in collisions and limited impact on reducing traffic congestion.
However, the CCF is siding with the province on appeal, arguing the ruling improperly interprets section 7 as a source of “positive rights,” which would require governments to provide something, such as infrastructure.
The CCF is, “a national, non-partisan charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.”
According to CCF counsel Josh Dehaas, treating bike lanes as a constitutional entitlement risks turning courts into arbiters of everyday transportation policy. The group will not represent the government, but will act as a third party intervener.
“Section 7 was meant to protect Canadians from government overreach, yet this ruling twists it into a tool for settling traffic policy debates,” Dehaas said. “The Charter was never intended to empower judges to micromanage infrastructure choices, but that is…
Click Here to Read the Full Original Article at Canadian Cycling Magazine…